Business travel

Liveability ranking

Explaining Vancouver's demise

THE new liveability ranking published earlier this week by the Economist Intelligence Unit—and reported by Gulliver here—has attracted a lot of comment. Much of it came from Vancouverites convinced their city had lost its top ranking because of congestion on not-so-near Vancouver Island caused by the closure of the Malahat highway. This was the impression mistakenly given by the report accompanying the ranking. So I thought it would be worth passing on the report author's own explanation for the reference to the highway, and its relation to the situation in Vancouver itself.

The idea is that we are reporting general raised congestion levels in and around Vancouver and the fact that the Malahat highway was closed is a reflection of this trend. It's probably a bad example given the geographical distance from downtown Vancouver—but it was the strongest example we had of road closures in the region. A Vancouver specific example might be the effects of the upgrade of highway 1 in Vancouver but because this was just an upgrade and not a closure I used Malahat as the main example.

Much of the feedback I've received is that congestion levels have risen in Vancouver but that Malahat is not a suitable example for Vancouver citizens to understand. But if this is the case then the change in score is still justified because people are reporting higher congestion.

First let me say that I'm a Vancouverite who never though Vancouver should have top ranking. It's expensive and its high levels of homelessness are ultimately a result of mega-developers controlling the political process. But on a technical note I have to question the Economist's research. The Malahat is very, very far from Vancouver. It's on a massive island relatively far from Vancouver. We are separated from it by a long ferry ride and then a long drive. The Malahat's nearest city is Victoria. There is zero relationship here - there has simply been an error. This is why you're getting a fair amount of reaction from Vancouverites.

The Malahat highway is NOT and example of congestion in the Vancouver Region, any more than congestion on Melbourne's highways is an example of congestion in the Vancouver Region, or any more than the Sudan famine has on Vancouver congestion. The two are simply not related.

The Economist needs to get over itself and simply state it made a mistake, and withdraw the Malahat reference. This may not change the score, but it would correct bad journalism.

The Economist continues to describe the Malahat as a highway in the Vancouver region. The Malahat is not only some "geographical distance from downtown Vancouver," it is separated entirely from the region by the Strait of Georgia (that would be a region of the Pacific Ocean), accessible to suburb regions of Metro Vancouver only by ferry or aircraft. There is no bridge connecting the Island to the Vancouver region.

There are so many valid reasons for Vancouver to have lost its top ranking, including meaningful traffic and transportation challenges within the Metro Vancouver region. The absence of a retraction of all Malahat Highway references is distracting some, and infuriating many.

The high cost of living is just unreasonable, even if it results in a relatively safe city. I still think Montreal is the best city in Canada because it has a great love of culture and joie de vivre which the other cities in Canada don't have. But you can't quantify culture.

I have spent a lot of time in Vancouver and never quite understood why it placed so high on these rankings. Here are some qualitative comments on a few of the factors you try to measure:

Healthcare - Yes it is "free" but the quality of advice and thoroughness is poor compared to most US cities. Plus if you want a non-emergency procedure done - a knee replacement for example - the wait is around six months.

Education - Public K-12 schools are not good. Teachers are older and delay retirement. Younger teachers can't get jobs. Read the Fraser Institute reports for public schools in the lower mainland. Better yet, visit a few schools in Burnaby, East Vancouver, Richmond, and Surrey. I doubt the Economist reading crowd would send their kids there.

Culture - There are basically two non-Caucasian cultures. East Indian and East Asian. Two is better than zero but I wouldn't call Vancouver diverse.

I live in Vancouver, and obviously like it; but frankly couldn't care less whether we top a listing or are away down the list. What really matters in this instance is the damage The Economist is doing to its internal processes in deciding the ordering in these lists.

Anyone who knows the geography around here knows full well that the Malahat is on an island, and is generally not used by Vancouverites, It's the better part of a 150-minute ferry ride and driving distance away from Vancouver, and a Vancouver resident would be hard pressed to find an excuse to use that highway under most circumstances. It's a bit like saying London's ranking is affected by lousy traffic conditions in (say) Coventry or Winchester.

There are plenty of other reasons why Vancouver might go up and down such a listing, but the Malahat has nothing to do with it. Vancouver is now very expensive, and the traffic during the present period (2010-2013) has been and will be a nuisance, as your correspondent has pointed out in his explanation.

But to use the Malahat as a reason merely undermines the whole process, and makes one wonder how many other flaws there might be in such Economist listings. I may now view Economist listings with disdain.

Vancouverites seemed happy enough not to split hairs when the city was on top. It seems petty to gripe now that they're no longer number 1.

I do have a question, though. It seems that cost of living was not factored into the ranking. How come?

Vancouver and Toronto are among the most expensive cities in Canada to live, with real estate prices, rent and taxes among (I believe) the highest in the country. Surely there must be some multiplier which would take into account cost of living?

Actually, no! It does not make me happier. I don't live in Vancouver, and have to admit it is not my favourite city .....but, your explanation is puerile. The Malahat Highway is, on Vancouver Island!! it is a bit like saying London has become more livable because the traffic in Calais has improved. Come on Economist, admit when you have dropped the ball.

Vancouver is a lot more expensive than Toronto. Outside of downtown core and a few highly desirable areas, Toronto is not all that pricey. It's definitely not worse than Calgary and Edmonton in their bubbly years where the real estate prices are high across the board, not only in highly desirable areas.

Besides, Toronto has a number of pretty high salaries driven by technologies and financial sector (and IT in financial sector), something Vancouver can't quite boast. It is actually pretty normal that real estate in downtown core is priced according to the purchasing power of people living in downtown core - and, trust me, in that area household incomes of a couple north of 150k are not that unusual.

of which both Vancouver could rank #1 in Canada on par with Geneve, part of London or Paris.
When winter comes, it is soaking wet in Vancouver for weeks, rain, cloudy skies as if someone forgot to turn off the faucet in heaven.

This Livable Index is kind of bias and meant only for immigrants' WESTERN CITIES, when I was in Xihu, Hanzhou area, I truly appreciate the proverb of Chinese saying.

"Heaven above, Hanzhou & Suzhou below"

Never mind, this is only Chinese predisposition, most Asian cities do not have medical & social factors on par with western criteria... forget about Osaka, Kyoto too.

These so called 'livable' cities are mostly old dominion towns - not too large, fairly safe and dull - good places for retirement and magnets for enterprising migrants from the the sub-continent and SE Asia generally. Give me a heaving, dirty, exciting city anytime.

However, the EIU does publish a separate worldwide cost of living index that ranks Vancouver as the most expensive of the 5 Canadian cities the index is calculated for (Calgary, Montreal, Sault St Marie, Toronto and Vancouver; www.worldwidecostofliving.com)

Perhaps models & analysis used by the EIU are too technical and complex, hence your technicians are always looking for proxies. To contribute, may I suggest a simple proxie that does away not only with all the proxies but most of the hours, wages and other expense associated with this rather irrelevant exercise.
To wit: THE BEST PLACE TO BE A POSTMAN.
please check: you'll find the correlation with your finding over recent years almost 1.
dW

Vancouver has high numbers of homeless street dwellers, the real estate prices are higher than most every other city in Canada. Traffic congestion & cost of living are also both at the high end. So why anyone would refute the fall in ranking, confounds me?

It seems funny to me that people from the oldest biggest cities of the world who's perspective is so superficial and hurried can really tell anyone where is the best place to live. Yes as far as cities go Vancouver used to be the best City in the world to live but that ceased about 15-20 years ago. Then it was very clean, then it was multicultural (people from western and eastern Europe were noticable) then it was a slow paced city proud of it's superior "QUALITY" of life and yes it was affordable. Unfortunatley that all changed. Vancouver is not really multicultural anymore, it is almost unicultural with the Modern Asian upsurping even the local indiginous people who first founded it ( English, Dutch, East European, First Nation and yes older mainland Chineese). It has become a city of the Asian Status symbol with monetary success as being the only judgment criteria for success. It has become far more crime ridden, far more hostile and far more fast paced. All the things that distinguished it from all the major world cities have gone and been replace by all the problems of those major cities. The Stanley Cup Riots of this Summer are just an effect of this betrayal. (This never would have happened 30 years ago).
Here is an idea for the Economist. How about finding really the best place on earth to live (period), not just the best biggest hostile city to live in. This may be Crested Butte Colorado, somewhere in Patagonia, or Bled,Slovinia. For my money though except for the rain Pr. Rupert, B.C. should be on the list. It is beautifull here, clean, fresh and freindly.

The Malahat, besides being 3 hours away from downtown Vancouver, is almost always free of congestion, and the only slowdowns I have encountered are those due to increased RCMP speed traps (which we all drive by so innocently before speeding up again).

"The Economist is a global organization"-with an absurd perspective on what makes cities livable. I would suggest that a prerequisite to being the most liveable city (or place) in the world is that it is not under the Economist "Intelligence" Unit's foggy microscope. I'm thinking Patagonia...

First off, this highway reference is very misleading. The best comparison I can think of is citing a highway on Tasmania as an example of traffic in Melbourne.

I've actually lived in the livable, though somewhat boring, Vancouver. Grew up there, went to school there, then moved to the US for some excitement. Of course no city can be more exciting than New York, but after five years there I've had my fill, thank you very much. In the last year I nearly lost my eye in a mugging at a subway station, got super ripped off on rent, and developed a skin condition attributed to the combination of high humidity and particulate air pollution in the city.

Unfortunately I am not back in Vancouver. Why? Because at this stage in my career moving there would mean a drop in the standard of living when factoring in the cost of real estate and ancillary costs. Instead, I'm in Metro DC, where work is plentiful, salaries are good, schools are some of the best in the US (Fairfax County), and as long as you keep off the beltway, traffic is not so bad either.

To bring up traffic congestion, as Gulliver has, by using the Malahat as the example is really out there as many have comment.

The issue of traffic congestion should bring up the other side of the coin. That of urban sprawl which Melbourne has more of due to the fact that it may not be constrained by the sustainable farmland issue that the Lower mainland has, the Agricultural Land Reserve.

Vancouverites may not realize this, but Melbourne is where the American-owned Australian auto industry is based. Melbourne has the freeways that Vancouver voted again in the hippy Vietnam War era. Melbourne has the type of urban sprawl that is not only duplicated in many Australian cities but has been much copied from it's American friend.